WestminsterResearch

http://www.westminster.ac.uk/westminsterresearch

A Comparative Study of Islamic and Conventional Banks Risk

Management Practices: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan
Rehman, A.A., Benamraoui, A. and Dad, A.M.

This is an author's accepted manuscript of an article published in the Journal of Banking

Regulation, 19 (3), pp. 222-235, 2018.

The final publication is available at Springer via:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41261-017-0046-z

The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of Westminster aims to make the
research output of the University available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain
with the authors and/or copyright owners.

Whilst further distribution of specific materials from within this archive is forbidden, you may freely
distribute the URL of WestminsterResearch: ((http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/).

In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e-mail repository@westminster.ac.uk

 A Comparative Study of Risk Management Practices between Islamic and Conventional
Banks: : The Case of Pakistan

Abstract

This paper investigates risk management practices of Islamic and conventional banks currently
operating in the city of Lahore, Pakistan. Self-administered questionnaire is used to collect data
from 150 bank senior managers and risk specialists with equal representation of the two banking
categories. The study results reveal that risk identification, risk assessment and analysis, credit risk
analysis and risk governance are the most efficient and influential variables in explaining the risk
management practices of Islamic banks. Whilst understanding risk management, credit risk
analysis, and risk governance are the most significant and contributing variables in the risk
management practices of conventional banks. The study findings also show that Islamic banks have
more areas of weaknesses in their risk management practices than conventional banks. The results
presented in this study are likely to benefit bank managers, investors, regulators, and policymakers
in guiding them when developing, reformulating and overseeing the bank(s) existing risk
management practices.

Key Words: Islamic banks, conventional banks, risk management, risk identification, risk
assessment and analysis, credit risk analysis, risk governance.

1
1. Introduction

Academics, practitioners and regulators agree that effective risk management is pivotal to the
success of modern banks, either conventional or Islamic (Al-Tamimi and Al-Mazrooei, 2007;
Hussain and Al-Ajmi, 2012; Rosman, 2009; Khalid and Amjad, 2012; Shafique et al., 2013). This
notion has sparked the argument invoking the development of a comprehensive approach in dealing
with risk exposures in banks (Sensarma and Jayadev, 2009).
The call for effective risk management in banking has accelerated further after the recent financial
crisis as many scholars believe that the failure of many financial institutions during this crisis was
due to inadequate risk management practices (Hashagen et al., 2009; Holland, 2010; Sabato, 2010).
This has motivated our study to shed more lights on the main weaknesses of the current banking
risk management practices using Pakistan as our case study. The research also contributes into our
understanding of how risk management techniques differ between conventional and Islamic banks.

While there are a number of studies devoted to conventional banking risk management practices
(i.e. Cebenoyan and Strahan, 2004; Ratnovski, 2013; Seok Weon, 2015) Islamic banks are still
under investigated in this very important area of research. This is despite the fast growth in Islamic
banking asset size and number of providers. By the end of 2015 the total assets of Islamic banks is
expected to reach US2.5 trillion Dollars with 375 Islamic financial institutions operating worldwide
(World Islamic Banking, 2014). In Pakistan, which is the focus of this study, the asset base of
Islamic banks is estimated at US9.6 billion Dollars in 2014 (State Bank of Pakistan, 2014). This is
more than 10% of the nation overall banking assets. The growth in the market share of Islamic
banks is also expected to continue in the foreseeable future and is expected to reach 20% by 2020.
In conjunction with the main aim of the study our research attempts to answer two pivotal
questions: (1) what are the main weaknesses in the current risk management practices of Islamic
and conventional banks operating in Pakistan?; and (2) how do risk management practices in
Islamic banks differ from those of conventional banks?
The remainder of the article is organised as follows. Section two outlines the main developments in
banking risk management practices as driven by the existing literature. The conceptual framework
is then discussed in section three. The research methodology and data are explained in the
subsequent section. In section five we present the study findings and we explicate the main results
emerging from the research investigation. The final section concludes the paper and provides
directions for future research.

2. Literature Review
Risk management is considered as a process that entails different fundamentals and steps.
Bhattacharya (2010, p. 22) states that the process of risk management should cover at least seven
key areas: (1) risk identification; (2) risk measurement; (3) risk analysis and evaluation; (4) risk
monitoring; (5) risk control; (6) risk mitigation; and (7) risk avoidance. While IBBM (2010) report
suggests a minimum of four steps to incorporate in the risk management process: risk identification,
risk assessment and measurement, risk control and mitigation and risk monitoring. In the context of
Islamic banking Sharia law and principles is added as another parameter into the risk management
process of banks (Khan and Ahmed, 2001).
Considering the relevant literature on bank risk management practices we find Al-Tamimi and Al-
Mazrooei (2007), Shafiq and Nasr (2010), Hassan (2009), Khalid and Amjad (2012), and Hussain
and Al-Ajmi (2012) among the scholars who investigated this area of research using questionnaire
as their main research tool. The results of Al-Tamimi and Al-Mazrooei (2007) revealed that UAE
banks are efficient in identifying, assessing, analysing and monitoring risks but differences do exists
2
between local and foreign banks in their capacity to assess, analyse and monitor risks. Hassan
(2009) finds that risk management practices of Islamic banks in Brunei Darussalam are strongly
aligned across risk identification and risk analysis and assessment. The results presented by Hussain
and Al-Ajmi (2012) indicate that banks operating in Bahrain are efficient in identifying, assessing,
analysing and monitoring risks. However, differences do exist between Islamic and conventional
banks in terms of their risk understanding and management as in Islamic banks managers are
required to fully comply with Sharia rules.
Another relevant research paper is by Shafiq and Nasr (2010) in which primary and secondary data
is used to investigate risk management practices of commercial banks in Pakistan. They found
monitoring of risk is the most influential variable in risk management practices of Pakistani
commercial banks. However, when regression analysis is applied separately on each variable used
in their study understanding risk management, risk identification, risk assessment, credit risk
analysis have significant and positive relationship with risk management practices alongside risk
monitoring. The results obtained by Shafiq and Nasr also revealed differences between public sector
commercial banks and private local banks in terms of understanding risk and risk monitoring. In a
similar study by Khalid and Amjad (2012) they found that risk monitoring, understanding risk and
tools of risk management, and credit risk analysis are the most influential variables in risk
management practices of Islamic banks operating in Pakistan.
In an international study by Ahmad et al. (2013), which included Pakistan alongside UAE and
Bahrain, their results revealed a number of differences in what is considered as the most important
factors underpinning banking risk management practices in each of these three countries. In Bahrain
they found that understanding of risk management tools, risk assessment and evaluation,
identification of risk and credit risk analysis all have significant statistical relationship with banks‟
risk management practices. But, the risk monitoring has exhibited a positive and insignificant
relationship with risk management practices of banks operating in Bahrain. The results obtained for
UAE indicate that understanding risk management tools, risk identification, risk assessment and
analysis all have a positive and significant relationship with banks' risk management practices.
Nevertheless, understanding methods of risk management is found to be the most influential
variable for the UAE banks. The results of Pakistani banks revealed that having good grasp of risk
management techniques, risk assessment and analysis, identification of risk, risk monitoring and
credit risk analysis have significant statistical relationship with bank risk management practices.
The liquidity crisis of 2007-2008 has further intensified research carried on banking risk
management practices including those taken by professional bodies. KPMG (2009), for example,
reports the results of a survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) in 2008 based on
data collected from 500 senior managers who are directly involved in risk management of leading
global banks. The results presented in this report indicate weaknesses in risk governance, lack of
expertise at the executive board level, and weak communication and reporting between business
units and functions of these banks.
Likewise, a number of policy documents issued by national and international financial authorities
have outlined the need to set up a comprehensive risk management framework and to reconsider the
current governance structure of banks (Financial Services Authority, 2008; Institute of International
Finance, 2007; Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 2008). The regulatory bodies also
suggest keeping risk on highest level of the bank‟s agenda. Along the same line of argument Sabato
(2010) recommends empowering the risk committee and chief risk office responsibility in the over
sighting of bank risk exposures.
In this study we have incorporated risk governance and liquidity risk analysis as additional two
variables in the bank risk management model with aim to provide empirical evidence on their
relevance to the approach currently applied in banking risk management. We also provide in-depth
3
analysis and detailed comparison of the risk management practices and procedures of Islamic and
conventional banks currently operating in Pakistan.

3. Conceptual Framework
Many studies published by well-known international bodies highlight the weak risk governance as
the main cause of the recent financial crisis (IIF and Ernst and Young, 2012; KPMG, 2009). This
argument is further supported by group of scholars (Hashagen et al., 2009; Holland, 2010; Sabato,
2010; Aebi et al., 2012; Battaglia and Gallo, 2015). The consensus among the scholars is that poor
governance is leading to lack of confidence of stakeholders in bank's ability to manage its asset and
liabilities which has triggered the liquidity crisis of 2007. The crisis then served as a means in
creating systematic risk which lead to the spread of the crisis across borders (García-Marco and
Robles-Fernandez, 2008). A study by Derwall and Verwijmeren (2007) has also provided empirical
evidence supporting the view that good governance contributes directly to minor systematic risk.
Liquidity risk is considered as another significant factor that contributed to the financial crisis of
2007-2008. Jenkinson (2008), for example, stated that the crisis has highlighted clear weaknesses in
the liquidity risk management of banks. This has undermined the financial stability of the banking
industry and the economy as whole. Liquidity risk is also perceived as an important risk under
Basel III principles (Giordana and Schumacher, 2013). The Basel III accord has introduced
minimum leverage ratio and two liquidity standards for banks (liquidity cover and net stable
funding ratios) to ensure that the liquidity risk of banks is properly managed.
To test if the above views are correct in relation to risk governance and liquidity risk this study
extends the banking risk management practices model suggested by Al-Tamimi and Al-Mazrooei
(2007) by incorporated these two very important risk factors in the research model. The model is
then applied to both conventional and Islamic banks currently operating in Pakistan.
Besides of liquidity and governance risk other researchers (Al-Tamimi and Al-Mazrooei, 2007;
Hassan, 2009; Rosman, 2009; Shafiq and Nasr, 2010; Khalid and Amjad, 2012; Hussain and Al-
Ajmi, 2012; and Ahmad et al., 2013) have included understanding risk and risk management
(URRM), risk identification (RI), risk assessment and analysis (RAA), risk monitoring and
reporting (RMR), credit risk analysis (CRA) as the main determinants of bank risk management
practice model. In this study we have incorporated all these factors (URRM, RI, RAA, RMR and
CRA) and added liquidity risk analysis (LRA), risk governance (RG) and bank type (this is to
distinguish between conventional and Islamic banks) into the final research model. The full function
of risk management practices (RMP) which we ultimately tested empirically is as follows: RMP= f
(URRM, RI, RAA, RMR, CRA, LRA, RG, Bank type).

4. Research Methodology
The study adopts a quantitative research approach employing self-administered questionnaire.
Using questionnaire is considered as an appropriate research technique to obtain primary data
(Tufano, 1996). It is also an economical way of collecting data from a potentially large number of
respondents allowing for statistical analysis of the study results (Miller, 1983). This research
methodology is also in-line with many studies conducted on risk management practices in emerging
markets (Al-Tamimi and Al-Mazrooei, 2007; Hassan, 2009; Khalid and Amjad, 2012; Shafiq and
Nasr, 2010; and Hussain and Al-Ajmi, 2012).
Data was collected from the selected banks' branch managers, senior credit managers, senior
management (including bank vice president, financial controller, credit risk officer, group chief of
commercial and retail banking, area credit risk manager, regional manager), and experts from the
risk management department of the Islamic and conventional banks operating in the city of Lahore

4
(Pakistan). These individuals were selected to complete the questionnaire as they were considered
to be the ones who have the relevant knowledge on banks‟ risk management practices.
The data was collected from 12 conventional banks, 5 fully fledged Islamic banks and 7
conventional banks with Islamic windows. The sample size included 150 respondents comprising
75 respondents from each type banking category, Islamic and conventional. Conventional banks
with Islamic windows are included under the Islamic category as their sharia compliant products
and services are offered and managed outside their normal conventional business lines and are
subject to the same Islamic banking principles. Initially, 180 questionnaires were distributed to the
banks' relevant employees, out of which 162 questionnaires were returned. In total, 12
questionnaires were eliminated because of missing data. The final response rate was 83.3%.
Previous literature on bank risk management practices (i.e. Al-Tamimi and Al-Mazrooei, 2007;
Hassan, 2009) and this study research objectives were fully observed in the preparation of the
questionnaire. The items and statements included in the questionnaire have also been carefully
selected. The final version of questionnaire consisted of 7 sections: (1) Understanding Risk and
Risk Management Practices (URRM); (2) Risk Identification (RI); (3) Risk Assessment and
Analysis (RAA); (4) Risk Monitoring and Reporting (RMR); (5) Credit Risk Analysis (CRA); (6)
Liquidity Risk Analysis (LRA); and (7) Risk Governance (RG).
Statistical measures including R-square and F-statistics were used to check the validity of the study
data. The reliability of the data was verified by applying Cronbach‟s alpha to each variable.
Cronbach‟s alpha helped to measure internal consistency of the results within a given scale. Data is
considered reliable if coefficient value is equal or greater than 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994;
De Vaus, 2002; Hair et al., 2010). Table 1 below presents the reliability analysis of data based on
type of bank i.e. Islamic and conventional bank. As exhibited in the table the overall data is reliable
as Cronbach‟s alpha value is greater than 0.70.

Table 1: Study Data Reliability

No. of items Cronbach’s alpha No. of Variables Cronbach’s alpha
Overall bank 86 .941 8 .894
Islamic Banking data 86 .946 8 .931
Conventional Banking data 86 .936 8 .854

The statements used in the questionnaire were based on the 7-Likert scale and were coded as
follows: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Somewhat Disagree = 3; Undecided = 4; Somewhat
Agree = 5; Agree = 6; and Strongly Agree = 7.
The study data was analysed in two folds. First, the descriptive statistics are computed to estimate
the differences in the characteristics of the two types of banks, Islamic and conventional banks, in
terms of carrying out their risk management practices and process. Second, inferential statistics,
including correlation matrix, regression analysis and Mann-Whitney U test were used in examining
the strength and direction of relationship of the independent and dependent variables built-in the
study regression model. The Mann-Whitney U test was also applied to determine whether
differences exist between conventional and Islamic banks in terms of their risk management
practices and if these differences are significant or not. The inferential statistics enable researchers
to make deductions and to draw conclusions from the study results (McQueen and Knussen, 2002).
In addition, Spearman Rho correlation is adopted to provide further check on the direction and
strength of the relationship among the study variables. Pearson correlation was not used though
because of the violation of assumption of parametric test.

5
5. Data Analysis and Discussion
This section provides an in-depth analysis to the study data. This is organised by bank managers‟
responses to the key statements covering risk management practices of conventional and Islamic
banks. First, as exhibited in Table 2 below the mean response to the nine statements about
understanding risk and risk management for Islamic and conventional banks is 5.8356 and 5.8504
respectively. The overall average does not, however, show any significant differences in the
responses of Islamic and conventional banks. The highest mean is given to statement 5 (risk
management is important for the success and performance of the bank) in which Islamic banks had
a score of 6.2933 with a standard deviation of 0.5396 and conventional banks had a result of 6.3200
with a standard deviation of 0.5963. The lowest mean is given to statement 7 (the objective of your
bank is to expand the applications of the advanced risk management technique). The average score
for Islamic banks and conventional banks for this statement is 5.0267 and 5.4533 respectively. This
result supports the notion that conventional banks are more likely to expand their existing risk
management techniques than Islamic banks.

Table 2: Responses on Understanding Risk and Risk Management Practices

Statements Islamic banks Conventional banks
Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
1 There is a common understanding of risk 5.7067 0.6733 5.6533 0.7621
management across the bank.
2 Risk management responsibility is clearly set out and 5.7067 0.7492 5.8667 0.7593
understood throughout the bank.
3 Risk management policy is communicated down the line 5.7600 0.6943 5.7467 0.8557
and well understood by all bank concerned parties.
4 Accountability for risk management is clearly set out 5.8667 0.8274 5.8400 1.0531
and understood throughout the bank.
5 Risk Management is important for the success and
6.2933 .53960 6.3200 0.5963
performance of the bank.
6 Application of the most sophisticated techniques in risk
management is pivotal in the bank. 5.7467 .63869 5.6533 0.9514

7 The objective of your bank is to expand the applications

5.0267 1.5419 5.4533 1.1185
of the use of advanced risk management technique.
8 It is significant for your bank to emphasize on
continuous review and evaluation of the techniques used 6.2800 0.7270 6.1467 0.7831
in risk management.
9 The bank applies risk management techniques with the
aim to reduce its costs or expected losses. 6.1333 0.7039 5.9733 1.0523
Average 5.8356 5.8504

The responses to statement 2 indicate that risk management line of responsibility is better
understood by conventional banks' staff than those of Islamic banks. This can be explained by
having more complicated risk models in Islamic banks as they need to deal with different types of
risks that are inherited in their financial products. Whereas, responses to statement 9 reveal that
Islamic banks are better in applying their risk management techniques to reduce costs and expected
losses. This is mainly attributed to the size of Islamic banks‟ portfolio which is smaller compared to
conventional banks. The results obtained for statement 8 are complementary to those related to
statement 9 as they indicate that Islamic banks place more emphasis on continuous review and
evaluation of their risk management techniques which ultimately help them cut their losses.
6
Table 3: Responses to Statements on Risk Identification

Statements Islamic banks Conventional banks

Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
1 The bank conducts a comprehensive and systematic
identification of its risks in line with the bank overall 6.0400 0.7959 6.3333 0.6224
aims and objectives.
2 Risk identification is a continuous process in the bank at
6.1867 0.8002 6.3067 0.6570
transactional and portfolio levels.
3 The bank finds it difficult to identify, and prioritize its
3.4667 1.5538 3.5733 1.9602
main risks.
4 Changes in risk are recognized and identified with the
5.4667 0.9054 5.8000 1.0654
bank‟s rules and responsibilities.
5 Your bank is aware of the strengths and weaknesses of
4.3067 1.4884 4.8933 1.5384
the risk management systems of the other banks.
6 Your bank has developed and applied procedures for the
6.0267 0.7706 6.0133 0.8620
systematic identification of investment opportunities.
Average 5.2489 5.4867

Table 3 exhibits the mean and standard deviation of Islamic and conventional banks responses to
the six statements on risk identification. The overall mean value of conventional banks (5.4867)
attained in this area is higher than the one attained for Islamic banks (5.2489). The highest mean in
the case of Islamic banks is given to statement 2 with score of 6.1867 while conventional banks had
their highest mean under statement 1 with score of 6.3333. The lowest response is given to
statement 3 in which Islamic banks had a mean value of 3.4667 compared to 3.5733 in conventional
banks. The low score attained by Islamic banks in this area is due to being exposed to sharia
compliance related risks which are hard to identify or measure.

Table 4: Responses to Statements on Risk Assessment and Analysis

Statements Islamic banks Conventional

banks
Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
1 Your bank assesses the likelihood of risk occurrence. 6.0800 0.5872 5.7200 1.1337
2 Your bank assesses risks by using qualitative analysis methods (e.g.
5.3600 1.2262 5.2400 1.4781
High, moderate, and low).
3 Your bank assesses risk by using quantitative analysis method. 6.2533 0.9167 6.0133 1.2246
4 Your bank analyses and evaluates the opportunities that it has to
5.9867 0.7442 6.1200 0.6358
achieve objectives.
5 Your bank's response to analysing risk includes an assessment of
5.8800 0.6567 5.8400 0.7359
the costs and benefits of each relevant risk.
6 Your bank‟s response to analysing risk includes prioritizing of risk
6.0400 0.6665 6.0400 0.6459
and selecting those that need an application of active management.
7 Your bank‟s response to analysing risk includes prioritizing risk
treatments where there are resource constraints on risk treatment 5.8000 0.6367 5.8800 0.6142
implementation.
Average 5.9143 5.8362

Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation of responses to statements on risk assessment and
analysis. The overall mean value of the responses to the seven statements is higher in Islamic banks
(5.9143) compared to conventional banks (5.8362). Results of statements 1, 2, 3 and 5 show higher
7
mean value for Islamic bank compared to conventional banks. Whereas, the results of statements 4
and 7 exhibit higher mean value for conventional banks as compared to Islamic banks. These results
can be explained by the variation in the two banking models priorities over their risk analysis. In
their strategic direction conventional banks have more emphasis on wealth creation while Islamic
banks focus more at ensuring that they do not engage in highly risky activities as they are deemed
unacceptable according to sharia law.

Table 6: Responses to Statements on Risk Monitoring and Reporting

Statements Islamic banks Conventional banks

Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
1 Monitoring the effectiveness of risk management is
an integral part of routine management reporting in 6.1067 0.5345 5.8800 0.6358
the bank.
2 Level of control by the bank is appropriate for the
5.8133 0.8806 5.9467 0.6127
risks that it faces.
3 Reporting and communication processes within the
5.9467 0.6757 5.9467 0.6344
bank support the effective management of risks.
4 The bank continuously evaluates the effectiveness
of its existing controls and risk management 5.8400 0.7173 5.8533 0.6301
responses.
5 The bank response to risk includes action plans in
5.8400 0.6786 5.9733 0.5688
implementing decisions about identified risk.
6 Bank managers continuously monitor the
implementation of risk management policies and 5.9600 0.7959 6.1067 0.6056
make necessary adjustments.
7 The bank managers regularly monitor the
effectiveness of the risk management policies and 5.9600 0.6865 6.0400 0.6459
procedures.
8 The bank organisational structure enables
monitoring and control over the business risks 6.1067 0.7635 6.0933 0.6189
taken.
9 The Chief Risk Officer takes the full responsibility
5.9600 0.9363 5.8267 1.0574
over risk monitoring in the bank.
Average 5.9482 5.9630

Table 6 shows the mean responses to bank risk monitoring and reporting nine statements. The
results reveal minimal differences between the two banking categories in this area with mean value
of 5.9482 for Islamic banks and 5.9630 for conventional banks. The highest mean value (6.1067) in
Islamic banks is attained for statements 1 and 8. Whereas, conventional highest mean value
(6.1067) is given to statement 6. The lowest mean value is given to statement 2 for Islamic banks
(5.8133) whilst conventional banks' lowest mean (5.8267) is given to statement 9. These results
indicate that more emphasise needs to be placed on risk control in the case of Islamic banks while
increasing the level of accountability for the Chief Risk Officer should be a priority in the case of
conventional banks.
Table 7 below shows the mean responses of the 10 statements on credit risk analysis. The results
indicate that the overall mean value of conventional banks (6.3520) is slightly higher than that of
Islamic banks (6.2987). The highest mean value for Islamic banks (6.5067) is attained under
statement 2 which indicates that they place high emphasise on evaluating client‟s character,
financial condition and ability to back the loan with good quality assets. On the other hand, the
highest mean value for conventional bank (6.5067) is given to statement 4 pointing to the
importance of risk management policy in dictating the bank overall credit policy. The results

8
obtained for statements 2, 5 and 9 implies that the two banking groups are cautious of their
borrowers‟ creditworthiness at both the ex-ante and ex-post stages of the lending process. Such
approach is considered to enable banks to develop better credit risk profile for their clients, to
identify problem loans and speed their recovery.

Table 7: Responses to Statements on Credit Risk Analysis

Statements Islamic banks Conventional banks

Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
1 The bank undertakes credit worthiness analysis
6.2667 0.5773 6.3067 0.6570
before granting loans.
2 The bank conducts thorough analysis of the
client‟s characters, capacity, collateral, capital and 6.5067 0.5294 6.4667 0.6224
conditions before granting loans.
3 The bank classifies borrowers according to their
5.9733 0.6969 6.4400 0.5982
riskiness.
4 The bank credit policy commensurate with its
6.2000 0.5927 6.5067 0.6232
overall risk management policy.
5 The bank obtains information about the borrowers
6.2800 0.6053 5.9600 0.7059
from credit information bureau.
6 The bank sets credit limits by type of borrowers,
economic sectors, and geographical locations to 6.3867 0.5669 6.4000 0.8542
avoid concentration of credit.
7 Credit risk is monitored on a regular basis and
6.4800 0.5291 6.3200 0.6401
reported to bank senior management.
8 The bank has a credit risk management committee
6.2800 1.4571 6.4400 0.6826
to oversee its different credit risk exposures.
9 The credit administration of the bank ensures
proper approval, completeness of documents,
6.3200 0.5732 6.4400 0.5751
receipt of collateral and approval of exceptions
before credit disbursement.
10 The bank board periodically reviews the credit
6.2933 0.6529 6.2400 0.5890
risk strategy and credit policy.
Average 6.2987 6.3520

Table 8 exhibits the mean responses to 11 statements on liquidity risk analysis. The results indicate
that the overall mean value of Islamic banks (6.0424) is higher than conventional banks (5.9455).
This finding supports the view that Islamic banks are more cautious about liquidity risk than their
conventional counterparts. Previous research by Islam and Chowdhury (2007), Ika and Abdullah
(2011), Jaffar and Manarvi (2011) and Usman and Khan (2012) presented similar findings. The lack
of investment opportunities for Islamic banks prevents them from using their liquidity sensibly as
well as from diversifying their portfolio.
In both banking groups the highest mean value is given to statement 8. This result indicates that the
asset and liability management committee is at the forefront in determining the bank policies on
liquidity risk and in ensuring that the bank evaluation in this area is properly executed. Whereas, the
lowest mean value is given to statement 11 as bank managers seem to give less attention to the use
of Value at Risk (VaR) as a method to measure market risk. This finding is quite surprising taking
into account the importance of market risk as one of the main risk pillars of Basel III Accord and
banks are supposed to implement sophisticated techniques in dealing with this type of risk.

9
Table 8: Responses to Statements on Liquidity Risk Analysis

Statements Islamic banks Conventional banks

Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
1 Liquidity is a key determinant of the bank financial
5.9200 0.6098 6.1333 0.7039
soundness.
2 The bank “Management Board” defines liquidity risk
strategy, and its tolerance for liquidity risk based on
6.1467 0.6716 5.9067 1.0023
the recommendation made by the Treasury and Risk
Committee.
3 Bank managers give due consideration to external and
internal factors posing liquidity risk while 6.1200 0.6770 6.3200 0.7005
formulating the liquidity policy.
4 The current bank‟s policy clearly defines the bank
6.2667 0.6844 6.1867 0.6301
liquidity strategy (short and long term).
5 The bank liquidity policy is flexible enough to deal
5.6533 0.9078 5.6533 0.8300
with the unusual liquidity pressures.
6 Board of Directors and Senior Managers regularly
6.0667 0.7039 6.2000 0.6778
review the liquidity policy of the bank.
7 Asset Liability Management Committee comprises of
senior managers from each key area of the bank 6.2267 0.6692 6.2800 0.6273
operations.
8 Asset Liability Management Committee is
responsible for reviewing and recommending 6.2933 0.6930 6.4400 0.5982
liquidity risk policies in the bank.
9 The bank has always identified the tools to meet its
6.1467 0.5857 6.2400 0.6543
liquidity requirements.
10 Stress Testing and Scenario Analysis plays a central
role in the liquidity risk management framework of 6.0400 0.9647 5.2267 1.4101
the bank.
11 The bank Stress Testing is based on sophisticated risk
management techniques including Value at Risk 5.5867 1.0792 4.8133 1.5218
(VaR) and option based models.
Average 6.0424 5.9455

Table 9 shows the mean responses based on 18 statements all geared towards bank risk governance.
The results indicate that the mean value attained by conventional banks in this area (5.8744) is
slightly higher than the one achieved by Islamic banks (5.6983). This is attributed to the
effectiveness of conventional banks‟ board of directors and risk committees in exercising their role
in managing and monitoring bank risks (see statements 1-3) as well as having better information
disclosure that aid directors in their day to day decision making (see statement 18a). The only area
in which Islamic banks had score far higher than conventional banks is in internal auditors‟
independence and their accountability to the board of directors. The small size of Islamic banks is
the likely reason why it is easier for the board of directors to monitor the duties carried out by the
bank internal auditors.
The results attained for statements 8 and 9 indicate that the Chief Risk Officer is having a weak role
in overseeing banking risks and reporting to the risk committee in both conventional and Islamic
banks. This finding is in line with Sabato (2010) concluding remarks that one of the contributing
factors to the recent financial crisis is the limited role played by Chief Risk Officers in properly
administering banking risks.
Islamic banks' respondents gave low score to statement 2 which point to less knowledge by board of
directors of the banking industry and its risks. This is an alarming result particularly as found by
Hashagen et al. (2009) and Ard and Berg (2010) the lack of relevant banking knowledge is one of
10
the main contributing factors to the recent credit crisis. Another area in which Islamic banks seem
to be struggling is on the remuneration disclosure of their board and senior managers (see statement
18b). The lack of disclosure is likely to result in less confidence of other key stakeholders in the
operations and performance of Islamic banks, particularly for those who are placing their funds
under mudaraba and murabaha contracts and face the risk of deduction in their return because of
remuneration paid to the bank directors.

Table 9: Responses to Statements on Risk Governance

Statements Islamic banks Conventional banks
Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation
1 The board of directors approves and oversees the bank
5.8267 1.0183 6.0800 0.6928
risk management framework, policies and processes.
2 The bank board of directors has relevant knowledge of
5.2000 1.2080 5.6800 0.9885
the banking industry and risk management.
3 The board of director formulates and defines the
mandate and responsibilities of board-level committees
5.8000 0.5694 6.0933 0.7008
(Risk committee; Audit committee) which deal with
risk governance.
4 Risk management committee members of the bank are
6.2933 0.8182 6.2533 0.6386
independent and qualified.
5 The bank risk management committee provides
sufficient policies and guidelines on how to manage 6.1467 0.6716 6.2133 0.6836
different risks.
6 The risk committee reviews and recommends risk
strategy to board of directors and oversees the 6.0533 0.6954 6.1467 0.5376
implementation of risk management framework.
7 The Chief Executive Officer develops and
recommends the overall business strategy, risk 5.5867 1.2954 5.7333 0.7228
strategy, risk appetite statement and risk tolerance.
8 The Chief Risk Officer oversees the risk management
4.3867 1.8808 4.9333 1.7578
functions of the bank.
9 The Chief Risk Officer develops, monitors and reports
4.0400 1.9413 4.8933 1.7977
on the bank risk metrics.
10 The internal auditors ensure that risk management
5.8933 0.6487 5.9200 0.6928
processes are in compliance with the bank policies.
11 The internal auditors evaluate the effectiveness and
5.9467 0.7514 5.8933 0.7635
efficiency of the bank risk management processes.
12 The internal auditors are independent and directly
6.4000 0.9004 6.2667 0.5773
accountable to the board of directors.
13 The central bank has an effective role in the
5.7867 0.9766 5.9733 0.7347
supervision of the bank risk management process.
14 The bank board and senior managers review internal
audit reports, prudential reports, and external experts 6.0400 0.7248 6.2133 0.6429
report as a part of the bank risk governance framework.
15 The bank compensation policies and practices are
consistent with its corporate culture, long-term 5.8267 0.7046 5.8267 0.9497
objectives, strategy and control environment.
16 The bank avoids compensation policies that create
5.4667 1.1310 5.6000 1.0266
incentives for excessive risk taking.
17 The bank is governed in a transparent manner. 5.9867 0.6876 5.9200 1.0102
18
The bank discloses information on:
a) Financial and operating results 6.0933 1.1528 6.4267 0.5966
b) Remuneration of board of directors and senior
managers 5.4933 1.2010 5.5467 1.4265
Average 5.6983 5.8744

11
Table 10 shows the results of regression analysis of the study model when applied to Islamic banks.
The model is estimated in order to investigate the effect of all independent variables (URRM, RI,
RAA, RMR, CRA, LRA, and RG) on RMP of Islamic banks. As indicated by the value obtained for
R-square, 75.9% of the variation in the dependent variable is due to the explanatory variables and
the remaining 24.1% variation is due to other factors. F value is also significant at 1% and hence we
can say that the overall model is a good fit.

The beta values indicate that RAA, CRA and RG are the main independent variables contributing to
RMP. The results also reveal that RI, RAA, CRA and RG have a positive relationship with RMP. In
addition, the t-value results show that RAA, CRA, RI are statistically significant at 1% while RG is
statistically significant at 10%.

Table 10: Regression Results of Islamic banks

Constant URRM RI RAA RMR CRA LRA RG

B -1.017 -.274 .182 .615 -.047 .510 -.078 .231 R2 =.759
St. Error .858 .201 .093 .155 .170 .110 .195 .136 F=30.151
t-value -1.185 -1.363 1.948 3.978 -.276 4.635 -.401 1.689 Sig=.000
Sig. .240 .177 .056*** .000* .784 .000* .690 .096***
* Significant at 1%; ** Significant at 5%; *** Significant at 10%.

Table 11 exhibits the regression results of the study model for the conventional banks category. The
value of R2 indicates that 65.2% variation in RMP is due to URRM, RI, RAA, RMR, CRA, LRA
and RG and the remaining 34.8% variation is due to other factors. The F-statistics is significant at
1% and therefore the model under study is considered to be a good fit. The beta values show that
URRM, RI, RMR, CRA, LRA and RG all have a positive relationship with RMP. RAA is the only
indicator with negative relationship with RMP. This is unlike what is observed in Islamic banks in
which URRM, RMR and LRA have negative correlation with RMP. These findings point to better
risk management practices in conventional banks vis-à-vis Islamic banks. Conventional banks weak
area is in risk assessment and analysis. This can be explained by the size of conventional banks
portfolio which is larger than Islamic banks and therefore makes the evaluation of their risk
portfolio more complicated.

Table 11: Regression Results of Conventional Banks

Constant URRM RI RAA RMR CRA LRA RG

B .486 .260 .076 -.081 .123 .176 .121 .252 R2 =.652
St. Error .563 .104 .074 .077 .174 .103 .098 .114 F= 17.902
t-value .862 2.506 1.030 -1.060 .705 1.714 1.236 2.203 Sig.= .000
Sig .392 .015* .307 .293 .483 .091** .221 .031*
* Significant at 5%; ** Significant at 10%.

12
6. Conclusions

In this study we have empirically investigated the risk management practices of Islamic and
conventional banks that are currently operating in Pakistan. The study results show that risk
identification, risk assessment and analysis, credit risk analysis and risk governance are the most
efficient and influential variables in explaining the risk management practices of Islamic banks. On
the other hand, understanding risk management, credit risk analysis, and risk governance are the
most significant and contributing variables in the risk management practices of conventional banks.
Differences between Islamic and conventional banks are also apparent in their liquidity risk analysis
and risk governance.

Islamic banks are found to be weak in their liquidity risk analysis, risk monitoring and reporting and
their directors overall understanding of the risk management practices. Whereas, risk assessment
and analysis is the most inadequate area in conventional banks. Training bank staff to be more
proficient in these areas would enable them to manage their risks more effectively. The role of the
chief risk officer also needs to be strengthened as found in this research. The level of monitoring
and information disclosure should be reinforced in the case of Islamic banks for better risk
governance. Finally, we recommend that bank senior managers to further investigate why these
aspects of the risk management process are not positively associated with the risk management
practices as there maybe unique factors to the bank risk management, which are inadequate.

The current research has two main limitations. First, the data was collected from one Pakistani city,
Lahore, and therefore the sample used may not be fully representative of the Pakistan banks.
Second, the time frame of the data collection and status of the national economy during this time
may have implications on the bank managers‟ perceptions of the significance of each area of the
risk management process. For future research we propose applying the research model used in this
study to other countries where Islamic banks are also prominent such as Malaysia and Saudi Arabia
to draw any comparison with the results presented in this article. The statements used as parameters
of risk management practices can also be extended to other areas and taxonomies such as those
related to wealth maximisation and bank regulatory framework.

13
References

Aebi, V., Sabato, G and Schmid, M. (2012) „Risk management, corporate governance, and bank
performance in the financial crisis‟, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 36 No.12, pp.3213 -
3226.

Ahmad, R.B., Noraini Bt, A.T and Mohd Noor Azli, A.K. (2013) „Remodeling of risk management
in banking: Evidence from the sub-continent and gulf‟, The Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp.468 - 489.

Al-Tamimi, H and Al-Mazrooei M. (2007) „Banks‟ risk management: A comparison study of UAE
national and foreign banks‟, The Journal of Risk Finance. Vol. 8 No. 4, pp.394 - 409.

Ard, L., and Berg, A. (2010) Bank governance: Lessons from the financial crisis, World Bank
Public Policy Journal, World Bank, Washington.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2008) „Principles for sound liquidity risk management
and supervision.‟ [online] http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs144.pdf (Accessed 18 November 2014).
Bhattacharya, K. M. (2010) Risk management in Indian banks, Himalaya Publishing House,
Mumbai.
Battaglia, F and Gallo, A. (2015) „Risk governance and Asian bank performance: An empirical
investigation over the financial crisis‟, Emerging Markets Review, Vol. 25, pp.53 - 68.
Cebenoyan, A.S and Strahan, P.E. (2004) „Risk management, capital structure and lending at
banks‟, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp.19 - 43.
De Vaus, D. (2002) Surveys in social research, 5th ed., UCL Press, London.

Derwall, J and Verwijmeren, P. (2007) „Corporate governance and the cost of equity capital:
Evidence from GMI‟s governance rating.‟ [online] http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=16114
(Accessed 14 October 2015).
Financial Services Authority. December (2008) „Strengthening liquidity standards.‟
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp08_22.pdf (Accessed 24 March 2013).
García-Marco, T and Robles-Fernández, M.D. (2008) „Risk-taking behaviour and ownership in the
banking industry: The Spanish evidence‟, Journal of economics and business. Vol. 60 No. 4, pp.332
- 354.
Giordana, G.A and Schumacher, I. (2013) „Bank liquidity risk and monetary policy: Empirical
evidence on the impact of Basel III liquidity standards‟, International Review of Applied
Economics, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp.633 - 655.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hashagen, J., Harman, N., Conover, M and Sharma, J. (2009) „Risk management in banking:
Beyond the credit crisis‟, Journal of Structured Finance, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp.92 - 103.
Hassan, A. (2009) „Risk management practices of Islamic banks of Brunei Darussalam‟, The
Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.23 - 37.
Holland, J. (2010) „Banks, knowledge and crisis: A case of knowledge and learning
failure‟, Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.87 - 105.
14
Hussain, A.H and Al-Ajmi, J. (2012) „Risk management practices of conventional and Islamic
banks in Bahrain‟, The Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.215 - 239.
IBBM. (2010) „Risk management in investment banking.‟ [online]
http://www.ibbm.org.my/pdf/FSTEPW12%20Risk%20Mgt%20in%20Investment%20Banking.pdf
(Accessed 24 November 2014).
Ika, S.R and Abdullah, N. (2011) „A comparative study of financial performance of Islamic banks
and conventional banks in Indonesia‟, International Journal of business and Social sciences, Vol. 2
No. 15, pp.199 - 207.
Institute of International Finance. (2007) „Principles of liquidity risk management.‟ [online]
http://www.iif.com/press/press+25.php (Accessed 23 May 2013).
Islam, M and Chowdhury, H.A. (2007) „A comparative study of liquidity management of an Islamic
and conventional bank: The evidence from Bangladesh‟, Journal of Islamic Economics, Banking
and Finance, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.89 - 108.
Jaffar, M and Manarvi, I. (2011) „Performance comparison of Islamic and conventional banks in
Pakistan‟, Global journal of Management and Business Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60 - 66.
Jenkinson, N. (2008) „Strengthening regimes for controlling liquidity risk: some lessons from the
recent turmoil‟, Quarterly Bulletin, Bank of England, Vo. 48 No. 2, pp. 223 - 228.
Khalid, S and Amjad, S. (2012) „Risk management practices in Islamic banks of Pakistan‟, The
Journal of Risk Finance, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp.148 - 159.
Khan, T., and Ahmed, H. (2001) „Risk management: An analysis of issues in Islamic financial
industry.‟ [online] http://www.sbp.org.pk/departments/ibd/Risk_Management.pdf (Accessed 12
December 2013).
KPMG, (2009) „Never again? Risk management in banking beyond the credit crisis.‟ [online]
http://www.kpmg.com/LU/en/IssuesAndInsights/Articlespublications/Documents/Riskmanagement
inbankingbeyondthecreditcrisis.pdf (Accessed 24 December 2012).
McQueen, R and Knussen, C. (2002) Research methods for social science: an introduction, Pearson
Education, England.
Miller, W.L. (1983) The survey method in the social and political sciences: achievements, failures,
prospects, Frances Pinter, London.
Nunnally, J and Bernstein, L. (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ratnovski, L. (2013) „Liquidity and transparency in bank risk management‟ Journal of Financial
Intermediation, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp.422 - 439.
Rosman, R. (2009) „Risk management practices and risk management processes of Islamic banks:
A proposed framework‟, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.242 -
254.
Sabato, G. (2010) „Financial crisis: Where did risk management fail?‟, International Review of
Applied Financial Issues & Economics, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.315 - 327.
Sensarma, R and Jayadev, M. (2009) „Are bank stocks sensitive to risk management?‟, The Journal
of Risk Finance, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.7 - 22.

15
Seok Weon, L. (2015) „Dividend policy and investment decisions of Korean banks‟, Review of
European Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp.245 - 252.
Shafiq, A and Nasr, M. (2010) „Risk management practices followed by the commercial banks in
Pakistan‟, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp.308 - 325.
Shafique, O., Hussain, N., and Hassan, T.M. (2013) „Differences in the risk management practices
of Islamic versus conventional financial institutions in Pakistan: An empirical study‟, The Journal
of Risk Finance, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp.179 - 196.
State Bank of Pakistan. (2013a) „Islamic banking bulletin (December 2013).‟ Islamic Banking
Department, State Bank of Pakistan, [online] http://www.sbp.org.pk/ibd/bulletin/2013/IBB-Dec-
2013.pdf (Accessed 21 June, 2014).
State Bank of Pakistan. (2014) „Islamic banking bulletin (June 2014).‟ Islamic Banking
Department, State Bank of Pakistan, [online] http://www.sbp.org.pk/ibd/bulletin/2014/IBB-Jun-
2014.pdf (Accessed 15 December 2014).
Tufano, P. (1996) „Who manages risk? An empirical examination of risk management practices in
the gold mining industry‟, Journal of Finance, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp.1097 - 1137.
Usman, A and Khan, K.A. (2012) „Evaluating the financial performance of Islamic and
conventional banks of Pakistan: A comparative analysis‟, International Journal of Business and
Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp.253 - 257.

16